Barry, you (and all your psueds) should get professional help.
Perhaps you can find a psychologist who will give you a group discount.
But Moulton is off somewhere, doing research on how to solve the generic problem of Recursive Social Drama.
He should have lots of data-since he is one and the same as Dr. Barry Kort, who has gotten himself banned from, what, five or six forums this year? Who has done this for years and years, compulsively playing out the same victim drama?
In fact, one could say that a large part of Kort's life is a Socially Disfunctional Recursive Drama Queen act.
Again and again, he repeats the same behavior, knowing what the results will be.
And, again and again, he whines and complains about the results--as if they were any surprise.
Its quite likely that its the sympathy of Kort's little band of friendly rejects that floats his boat.
Barry gets to play the victim (by making himself one, ie by acting out and being disruptive, creepy, and by stalking people, until he gets ostracized, lambasted, banned) and then he gets to cuddle up with his fellow rejects, who lick his wounds and murmer about how unfair it all is.
What a sad, sick game.
If you are looking for a Recursive Social Drama, look no further.
You should attribute that nice story to God, who wrote the bible in his own words, about how he created the universe 6000 years ago. I'm surprised you don't know this, Moulton. Give credit where it's due! Listen not to the deceptive word of man, but to the true word of God, etc. Bla bla bla.
When you say "We're prollygonna have to package it up inside a good story anyway, if we wanna get it out there for public consumption", I wonder: is that particular wording the product of your intelligent design process?
Your statement reminds me how George W Bush affects his artificial good old boy colloquial accent, makes anti-intellectual statements to appeal to his base, talks down to the American people as if they were children, makes up nice sounding stories he knows aren't true, "packages" the truth he refuses say in public, and doesn't believe the American people deserve to know what he really thinks.
As they say in Texas (or is it Tennessee?), and as Laura Bush embroiders across several pillows: "There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."
The Affective Computing Rearch Group at MIT Media Lab should hit the White House Press Office up for some research funding, to help perfect the skill of looking directly into the camera and lying with a straight face. The Bush Administration is going to need to get a lot better at that, during the next few years.
Maybe they'd pay Picard millions of dollars to develop a vibrator for Bush Administration officials that goes off when people look like the don't believe the lies they're being told with a straight face. Just to be fair and balanced, imagine what a mess we could have avoided if Bill Clinton had one: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman. BZZZZZZZZZZZ!"
Doesn't Bill O'Reilly already have one of those? It just always going off all the time, for him!
"What, you've got a vibrator, don't you? Every girl does." [Is that why girls always know what guys are thinking? Or is it because guys are always thinking the same thing?]
"And just use your vibrator to blow off steam."
"Yes, in fact my wife does have a vibrator. She'd kill me if she knew I was telling you!"
"You should purchase a vibrator and name it."
"I have a vibrator shaped like a cock with a little battery in it."
"We should buy a vibrator together, I could coach you through it."
"If any woman ever breathed a word I'll make her pay so dearly that she'll wish she'd never been born."
"I'll rake her through the mud, bring up things in her life and make her so miserable that she'll be destroyed."
"And besides, she woudn't be able to afford the lawyers I can or endure it financially as long as I can."
"And nobody would believe her, it'd be her word against mine and who are they going to believe?"
"Who are they going to believe? Me or some unstable woman making outrageous accusations?" [Bill, your vibrator's going off again! They're not convinced!]
"They'd see her as some psycho, someone unstable." [In other words: A match made in heaven!]
"Besides, I'd never make the mistake of picking unstable crazy girls like that." [Yeah, he'd rather pick Ann Coulter, who's actually an unstable crazy dude!]
"Nobody sticks up for Christmas except me." [Such a martyr. Why don't you get nailed up for Easter, too?]
Certainly I'll provide a pointer. Just look at Moulton's earlier replies to my postings. That's what I was talking about.
In general, the ID people try to exploit the inherent ambiguity of the term "Intelligent Design", because it could be interpreted as meaning many positive things. But the fact of the matter is that they have defined the term to mean one thing in front of Evangelical Christian audiences (Creationism), and another thing in public (Science). It's that flip-flopping meaning of the term that we're discussing. Or at least trying to discuss, but Moulton keeps trying to change the subject of Intelligent Design to non-stupid industrial design, and the subject of Creationism to creativity, or whatever he can come up with to avoid directly answering the questions I'm asking.
This technique is a page out of the Discovery Institute's playbook. It's no accident that they chose the terms they did, nor is it any accident that Moulton is pretending to be so confused. It's called the "Wedge Strategy".
The Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture are notorious for their intellectually dishonest practices in support of Intelligent Design. They are the organization that sponsored the Anti Evolution that Rosalind Picard signed her name to, along with the name of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
I'm a huge fan of MIT, the AI Lab an the Media Lab, and I owe them a lot. I find it reprehensible that Picard would drag their good name into the wrong side of the Intelligent Design debate.
Congratulations on successfully taking back the term "Intelligent Design" from the creationists. That was pure dead brilliant. But now you've made it impossible to discuss important issues of the day, and wasted lots of time by confusing people who were trying to discuss Evolution versus Creationism.
I wish you would have let the Discovery Institute know you've taken the term back, and posted an announcement to the effect, or at least put a disclaimer in all of your messages that you've taken back the meaning of Intelligent Design, and now it means something totally different, before proceeding to spew forth on your favorite topic. Otherwise, your flakey new-age ramblings only serve to distract from the real discussion of an important issue.
You know, that gives me a great idea: we could redefine the meaning of the word "freedom" to mean "I resign the presidency effective at noon tomorrow" (or whatever office and time is appropriate), so the next time George W Bush or Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld or Tom Delay uses that word, they automatically lose their office and have to go find work elsewhere in the private sector. OMG that would be even better than ponies!!! Oh yeah, while I'm at it, that reminds me: I'd like a pony, too!!!
I tell you what: First you respond to the questions I've already asked, then I'll respond to whatever questions you want me to. But right now, you've built up a huge deficite of unanswered questions, so I don't feel I owe you any answers when you won't answer any questions yourself.
Do you believe in Creationism? Does Picard believe in Creationism?
Again, at the risk of sounding like a robot muself, I repeat: I'm asking questions, not making claims. Why are you so afraid of answering a simple question? This wouldn't have gone on for so long if you or Picard would answer direct questions.
Do you believe in Creationism? Tell us! Does Picard believe in Creationism? Ask her! Tell us what she says!
No you haven't "taken back the meaning of Intelligent Design". You're simply using that as an excuse to avoid discussing the real issues, or answering direct questions.
The New York Times published a story that scandalizes, demeans and ridiculs the MIT Media Lab, by associating one of their researchers with Intelligent Design.
I'm earnestly asking: does Rosalind Picard believe in Creationism? That's a simple question to answer, really. She's the one who made her religion a public issue in the first place, by putting her name and the name of MIT onto the Anti-Evolution petition sponsored by the Discovery Institute.
You work with Picard, so why don't you ask her, and report back the answer?
Why won't you say if you believe in Creationism yourself? I'll tell you if I do or not: I don't. There. Now it's your turn to answer the same question. It wasn't hard.
I ask again: Do you believe in Creationism or not?
Thanks for making such a big deal out of avoiding answering this simple question. Your evasive responses have dragged the argument out, and perfectly illustrated my point.
I've been publishing QUESTIONS, not claims, and the questions are still going unanswered. The New York Times published the so-far undisputed claim that Rosalind Picard signed the Anti-Evolution petition, and that is frequently cited by promoters of intelligent design in support of their theory. Do you dispute that?
The Discovery Institute says one thing in front of evangelical Christian audiences (that ID = Creationism), and a totally different thing in public (that ID has nothing to do with Creationism). Which of their two faces do you believe?
If your personal theory of Intelligent Design is something that has nothing to do with Creationism, then yes, the Discovery Institute is out to get your theory, and they won. The meaning of the term "Intelligent Design" has been taken over and defined by dyed in the wool Creationists. That term was specifically chosen because of its potential to be misunderstood. If you think it means something else, you didn't get the memo. If you try to use "Intelligent Design" to mean something else, you're going to be misunderstood, so come up with a new term instead, like "Not Designing Man-Made Objects Stupidly".
Arguments for people not designing man-made objects stupidly are not arguments for Creationism or against Evolution. They're just distractions from arguing about the real issues of Creationism versus Evolution.
I'm eager to hear you answer the question yourself, so I don't have to draw any conclusions without first hand evidence. So let's skip the bullshit and get back to the question: Do you believe in Creationism or not?
Not unless you consider the fact that all Sims are naturally bisexual to be an easter egg. But since I wrote that into the design document, technically it's not an easter egg.
And your point is? Please share with us what you think the central insight of the Adam and Eve myth is, and how Poincare and Lorentz had anthing to say about original sin and creationism. Or were they actually just misogynists looking for a religious justification to subjugate women and destroy the environment?
The ethic of conservation is the explicit abnegation of man's dominion over the Earth.
The lower species are here for our use. God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet -- it's yours.
That's our job: drilling, mining and stripping.
Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view.
Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars -- that's the Biblical view.
It would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact.
In fact, in every presidential election since 1950 - except Goldwater in '64 -- the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted.
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.
We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee.
I agree! I think it was a brillieant idea to divert attention away from Jesus by packaging his birthday up in the Santa Clause Myth, which replaces faith with consumerism and greed, and packaging his resurrection up in the Easter Bunny Myth, which replaces faith with surrealism and brightly colored edible decorations. And the idea of making chocolate Santa Clauses and Easter Bunnies hollow was absolutely BRILLIANT! There are some deep lessons to be learned about life there.
There's a big different between telling fairy tales to children, and teaching them as facts, to children and adults.
Is it really that grown-up Creationists actually don't believe in Adam and Eve themselves, but they just want their kids to believe in it just like they believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny? Isn't it cute the things that kids will believe when adults systematically lie to them?
Moulton believes that intelligent design should be taught in schools:
My position on Intelligent Design is that it should be taught in the Engineering Curriculum, so that our engineered products are intelligently designed.
[...]
It would astonish me if you didn't believe in teaching the principle of intelligent design when designing systems that mimicked the dynamics of the real world.
Moulton is being intellectually dishonest and taking a page from the Discovery Institute's play book, by trying to divert the conversation away from the real topic, and pretending to misunderstand the meaning of the words, and constructing a straw-man argument instead.
Moulton, can you answer a straightforward question without pretending to misunderstand and weaseling out of addressing the topic? Do you believe in Creationism or not? Yes, you know what I mean, and no I'm not talking about "creativity", and yes you've already made that "joke" of misunderstanding me twice. If you still can't answer it directly, I'll have good reason to assume that you do believe in Creationism, because of your evasiveness on the subject.
The pope said Creationism and the story of Adam and Eve are true, and he has an infallible doctrine that says he's never wrong. What more proof do you need! Everyone who believes the Pope without question should also be skeptical about Evolution. It's only fair and balanced.
Anyone who tells you that that the "Pope Says Evolution Compatible with Faith" or that John Paul II did say evolution was "more than a hypothesis," just doesn't understand the nuance of those words and the context in which they were spoken. You see, religions are special because they get to have it both ways.
Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer proves ID! What other explanation is there for a reindeer having a bright red nose that lights up to guide Santa Clause's way to deliver gifts to all the good boys and girls? Even more proof for Intelligent Design, and another strike against the ridiculous idea that the Earth is more than 6000 years old.
The Easter Bunny is the best proof yet of intelligent design! What other explanation is there for rabbits laying painted eggs on Jesus's birthday? Obviously that proves the existence of God, and supports the story of Adam and Eve.
Evolution isn't inconsistent with the existence of God, but it certainly IS inconsistence with the particular set of fairy tales that evangelical Christian religions want to teach in schools.
Intelligent design is not about teaching God in schools, it's about teaching Christian Fairy Tales in school. Anybody who tells you that ID has nothing to do with Adam and Eve is a liar or an idiot. When the Discovery Institute talks to evangelical Christian audiences, they certainly do link the two. It's just when they speak in public that they try to maintain that there is no connection.
Then there are the charlitans who want you to believe "Intelligent Design" has nothing to do with religion or even evolution, and try to divert the conversation by pretending it's about PEOPLE designing things intelligently, so they try to imply the anti-ID people are actually for PEOPLE designing things UNINTELLIGENTLY. That's an intellectually dishonest straw-man argument, and the people who make it know that. They're just afraid to address the real issues because they know they're wrong, but want to defend the ID agenda for their own religious reasons they're afraid to admit in public, because they know they'll lose that argument.
By the way, stop accusing me of ascribing activities and beliefs to you and Picard -- I'm ASKING you what you believe in (again and again), not telling you what to believe. But both of you refuse to answer the questions! Seems pretty suspicious to me. Are you really weasels? Just asking!
So I guess the answer to the first question is "Yes, you do continue to pretend to misunderstand me".
I've given pleanty of links to defintions in my previous messages. Are you having trouble clicking on them?
There is this thing called "wikipedia". And another thing called "google". Look up the terms you're having trouble (or pretending to have trouble) understanding.
Do you know how to use those reference sources, or is it against your religion to learn anything that contradicts the teachings of the bible?
You're still pretending to misunderstand, and avoiding most of the questions. Do I need to repeat them, or can you click in the links and read them again?
So you really think that engineers should apply the theory of Intelligent Design? Should a bridge be designed to only last until the Rapture, because the universe is only 6000 years old, and Jesus is coming soon? Should geologists take into consideration the "fact" that God burried dinosaur bones deep in the ground to test our faith when he created the Earth 6000 years ago, when trying to predict the next earthquake? Do you use a small pterodactyl as a telephone and a phonograph player, just like Fred Flinstone, because the bible didn't say anything about electricity or radio waves? Where do you draw the line?
What do you have against passing on the insights of Darwin on to the next generation of designers and engineers? If you have a better theory, then let's hear it!
Slashdot Mirror
I'm inclined to take the position that you hit the nail on the head. Here's something I ran across... I totally feel for him, hook line and sinker.
-Don
From: The Soap Opera Forum
Bela - Jul 5, 2005 11:16 am (#131 of 484) Reply
Barry, you (and all your psueds) should get professional help.
Perhaps you can find a psychologist who will give you a group discount.
He should have lots of data-since he is one and the same as Dr. Barry Kort, who has gotten himself banned from, what, five or six forums this year? Who has done this for years and years, compulsively playing out the same victim drama?
In fact, one could say that a large part of Kort's life is a Socially Disfunctional Recursive Drama Queen act.
Again and again, he repeats the same behavior, knowing what the results will be.
And, again and again, he whines and complains about the results--as if they were any surprise.
Its quite likely that its the sympathy of Kort's little band of friendly rejects that floats his boat.
Barry gets to play the victim (by making himself one, ie by acting out and being disruptive, creepy, and by stalking people, until he gets ostracized, lambasted, banned) and then he gets to cuddle up with his fellow rejects, who lick his wounds and murmer about how unfair it all is.
What a sad, sick game.
If you are looking for a Recursive Social Drama, look no further.
You should attribute that nice story to God, who wrote the bible in his own words, about how he created the universe 6000 years ago. I'm surprised you don't know this, Moulton. Give credit where it's due! Listen not to the deceptive word of man, but to the true word of God, etc. Bla bla bla.
-Don
When you say "We're prolly gonna have to package it up inside a good story anyway, if we wanna get it out there for public consumption", I wonder: is that particular wording the product of your intelligent design process?
Your statement reminds me how George W Bush affects his artificial good old boy colloquial accent, makes anti-intellectual statements to appeal to his base, talks down to the American people as if they were children, makes up nice sounding stories he knows aren't true, "packages" the truth he refuses say in public, and doesn't believe the American people deserve to know what he really thinks.
As they say in Texas (or is it Tennessee?), and as Laura Bush embroiders across several pillows: "There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."
The Affective Computing Rearch Group at MIT Media Lab should hit the White House Press Office up for some research funding, to help perfect the skill of looking directly into the camera and lying with a straight face. The Bush Administration is going to need to get a lot better at that, during the next few years.
Maybe they'd pay Picard millions of dollars to develop a vibrator for Bush Administration officials that goes off when people look like the don't believe the lies they're being told with a straight face. Just to be fair and balanced, imagine what a mess we could have avoided if Bill Clinton had one: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman. BZZZZZZZZZZZ!"
Doesn't Bill O'Reilly already have one of those? It just always going off all the time, for him!
-Don
Certainly I'll provide a pointer. Just look at Moulton's earlier replies to my postings. That's what I was talking about.
In general, the ID people try to exploit the inherent ambiguity of the term "Intelligent Design", because it could be interpreted as meaning many positive things. But the fact of the matter is that they have defined the term to mean one thing in front of Evangelical Christian audiences (Creationism), and another thing in public (Science). It's that flip-flopping meaning of the term that we're discussing. Or at least trying to discuss, but Moulton keeps trying to change the subject of Intelligent Design to non-stupid industrial design, and the subject of Creationism to creativity, or whatever he can come up with to avoid directly answering the questions I'm asking.
This technique is a page out of the Discovery Institute's playbook. It's no accident that they chose the terms they did, nor is it any accident that Moulton is pretending to be so confused. It's called the "Wedge Strategy".
The Discovery Institute and its Center for Science and Culture are notorious for their intellectually dishonest practices in support of Intelligent Design. They are the organization that sponsored the Anti Evolution that Rosalind Picard signed her name to, along with the name of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
I'm a huge fan of MIT, the AI Lab an the Media Lab, and I owe them a lot. I find it reprehensible that Picard would drag their good name into the wrong side of the Intelligent Design debate.
-Don
Congratulations on successfully taking back the term "Intelligent Design" from the creationists. That was pure dead brilliant. But now you've made it impossible to discuss important issues of the day, and wasted lots of time by confusing people who were trying to discuss Evolution versus Creationism.
I wish you would have let the Discovery Institute know you've taken the term back, and posted an announcement to the effect, or at least put a disclaimer in all of your messages that you've taken back the meaning of Intelligent Design, and now it means something totally different, before proceeding to spew forth on your favorite topic. Otherwise, your flakey new-age ramblings only serve to distract from the real discussion of an important issue.
You know, that gives me a great idea: we could redefine the meaning of the word "freedom" to mean "I resign the presidency effective at noon tomorrow" (or whatever office and time is appropriate), so the next time George W Bush or Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld or Tom Delay uses that word, they automatically lose their office and have to go find work elsewhere in the private sector. OMG that would be even better than ponies!!! Oh yeah, while I'm at it, that reminds me: I'd like a pony, too!!!
-Don
Q: Why do programmers confuse Christmas with Halloween?
A: Because DEC 25 = OCT 31
-Don
I tell you what: First you respond to the questions I've already asked, then I'll respond to whatever questions you want me to. But right now, you've built up a huge deficite of unanswered questions, so I don't feel I owe you any answers when you won't answer any questions yourself.
Do you believe in Creationism? Does Picard believe in Creationism?
-Don
Again, at the risk of sounding like a robot muself, I repeat: I'm asking questions, not making claims. Why are you so afraid of answering a simple question? This wouldn't have gone on for so long if you or Picard would answer direct questions.
Do you believe in Creationism? Tell us! Does Picard believe in Creationism? Ask her! Tell us what she says!
-Don
No you haven't "taken back the meaning of Intelligent Design". You're simply using that as an excuse to avoid discussing the real issues, or answering direct questions.
The New York Times published a story that scandalizes, demeans and ridiculs the MIT Media Lab, by associating one of their researchers with Intelligent Design.
I'm earnestly asking: does Rosalind Picard believe in Creationism? That's a simple question to answer, really. She's the one who made her religion a public issue in the first place, by putting her name and the name of MIT onto the Anti-Evolution petition sponsored by the Discovery Institute.
You work with Picard, so why don't you ask her, and report back the answer?
Why won't you say if you believe in Creationism yourself? I'll tell you if I do or not: I don't. There. Now it's your turn to answer the same question. It wasn't hard.
-Don
I ask again: Do you believe in Creationism or not?
Thanks for making such a big deal out of avoiding answering this simple question. Your evasive responses have dragged the argument out, and perfectly illustrated my point.
-Don
I've been publishing QUESTIONS, not claims, and the questions are still going unanswered. The New York Times published the so-far undisputed claim that Rosalind Picard signed the Anti-Evolution petition, and that is frequently cited by promoters of intelligent design in support of their theory. Do you dispute that?
So why are you STILL not answering the questions?
-Don
The Discovery Institute says one thing in front of evangelical Christian audiences (that ID = Creationism), and a totally different thing in public (that ID has nothing to do with Creationism). Which of their two faces do you believe?
If your personal theory of Intelligent Design is something that has nothing to do with Creationism, then yes, the Discovery Institute is out to get your theory, and they won. The meaning of the term "Intelligent Design" has been taken over and defined by dyed in the wool Creationists. That term was specifically chosen because of its potential to be misunderstood. If you think it means something else, you didn't get the memo. If you try to use "Intelligent Design" to mean something else, you're going to be misunderstood, so come up with a new term instead, like "Not Designing Man-Made Objects Stupidly".
Arguments for people not designing man-made objects stupidly are not arguments for Creationism or against Evolution. They're just distractions from arguing about the real issues of Creationism versus Evolution.
-Don
I'm eager to hear you answer the question yourself, so I don't have to draw any conclusions without first hand evidence. So let's skip the bullshit and get back to the question: Do you believe in Creationism or not?
-Don
Not unless you consider the fact that all Sims are naturally bisexual to be an easter egg. But since I wrote that into the design document, technically it's not an easter egg.
-Don
And your point is? Please share with us what you think the central insight of the Adam and Eve myth is, and how Poincare and Lorentz had anthing to say about original sin and creationism. Or were they actually just misogynists looking for a religious justification to subjugate women and destroy the environment?
-Don
I agree! I think it was a brillieant idea to divert attention away from Jesus by packaging his birthday up in the Santa Clause Myth, which replaces faith with consumerism and greed, and packaging his resurrection up in the Easter Bunny Myth, which replaces faith with surrealism and brightly colored edible decorations. And the idea of making chocolate Santa Clauses and Easter Bunnies hollow was absolutely BRILLIANT! There are some deep lessons to be learned about life there.
-Don
There's a big different between telling fairy tales to children, and teaching them as facts, to children and adults.
Is it really that grown-up Creationists actually don't believe in Adam and Eve themselves, but they just want their kids to believe in it just like they believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny? Isn't it cute the things that kids will believe when adults systematically lie to them?
Moulton believes that intelligent design should be taught in schools:
Moulton is being intellectually dishonest and taking a page from the Discovery Institute's play book, by trying to divert the conversation away from the real topic, and pretending to misunderstand the meaning of the words, and constructing a straw-man argument instead.
Moulton, can you answer a straightforward question without pretending to misunderstand and weaseling out of addressing the topic? Do you believe in Creationism or not? Yes, you know what I mean, and no I'm not talking about "creativity", and yes you've already made that "joke" of misunderstanding me twice. If you still can't answer it directly, I'll have good reason to assume that you do believe in Creationism, because of your evasiveness on the subject.
-Don
The pope said Creationism and the story of Adam and Eve are true, and he has an infallible doctrine that says he's never wrong. What more proof do you need! Everyone who believes the Pope without question should also be skeptical about Evolution. It's only fair and balanced.
Anyone who tells you that that the "Pope Says Evolution Compatible with Faith" or that John Paul II did say evolution was "more than a hypothesis," just doesn't understand the nuance of those words and the context in which they were spoken. You see, religions are special because they get to have it both ways.
-Don
Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer proves ID! What other explanation is there for a reindeer having a bright red nose that lights up to guide Santa Clause's way to deliver gifts to all the good boys and girls? Even more proof for Intelligent Design, and another strike against the ridiculous idea that the Earth is more than 6000 years old.
-Don
The Easter Bunny is the best proof yet of intelligent design! What other explanation is there for rabbits laying painted eggs on Jesus's birthday? Obviously that proves the existence of God, and supports the story of Adam and Eve.
-Don
Evolution isn't inconsistent with the existence of God, but it certainly IS inconsistence with the particular set of fairy tales that evangelical Christian religions want to teach in schools.
Intelligent design is not about teaching God in schools, it's about teaching Christian Fairy Tales in school. Anybody who tells you that ID has nothing to do with Adam and Eve is a liar or an idiot. When the Discovery Institute talks to evangelical Christian audiences, they certainly do link the two. It's just when they speak in public that they try to maintain that there is no connection.
Then there are the charlitans who want you to believe "Intelligent Design" has nothing to do with religion or even evolution, and try to divert the conversation by pretending it's about PEOPLE designing things intelligently, so they try to imply the anti-ID people are actually for PEOPLE designing things UNINTELLIGENTLY. That's an intellectually dishonest straw-man argument, and the people who make it know that. They're just afraid to address the real issues because they know they're wrong, but want to defend the ID agenda for their own religious reasons they're afraid to admit in public, because they know they'll lose that argument.
-Don
By the way, stop accusing me of ascribing activities and beliefs to you and Picard -- I'm ASKING you what you believe in (again and again), not telling you what to believe. But both of you refuse to answer the questions! Seems pretty suspicious to me. Are you really weasels? Just asking!
-Don
So I guess the answer to the first question is "Yes, you do continue to pretend to misunderstand me".
I've given pleanty of links to defintions in my previous messages. Are you having trouble clicking on them? There is this thing called "wikipedia". And another thing called "google". Look up the terms you're having trouble (or pretending to have trouble) understanding.
Do you know how to use those reference sources, or is it against your religion to learn anything that contradicts the teachings of the bible?
You're still pretending to misunderstand, and avoiding most of the questions. Do I need to repeat them, or can you click in the links and read them again?
-Don
If playing games like The Sims causes you to believe in Creationism, then you're totally Reverse-Over-Engineering them.
-Don
So you really think that engineers should apply the theory of Intelligent Design? Should a bridge be designed to only last until the Rapture, because the universe is only 6000 years old, and Jesus is coming soon? Should geologists take into consideration the "fact" that God burried dinosaur bones deep in the ground to test our faith when he created the Earth 6000 years ago, when trying to predict the next earthquake? Do you use a small pterodactyl as a telephone and a phonograph player, just like Fred Flinstone, because the bible didn't say anything about electricity or radio waves? Where do you draw the line?
What do you have against passing on the insights of Darwin on to the next generation of designers and engineers? If you have a better theory, then let's hear it!
-Don